Covid Inquiry 'endorsed state-backed surveillance of lockdown critics'

Critics of pandemic restrictions have accused the Covid Inquiry of "endorsing" state-sponsored surveillance following the publication of its latest report last month.

The inquiry concluded that the Government's counter-disinformation unit operated in a manner that was "lawful, necessary and proportionate" during the health crisis.

Campaigners whose social media activity was secretly tracked by the CDU have branded this conclusion "chilling" and characterised it as an assault on freedom of expression.

The unit, established by ministers in 2019 to address perceived domestic threats, was deployed during the pandemic to keep tabs on high-profile voices who challenged official Covid policies.

Many concerns raised by these campaigners, particularly regarding the effects of lockdowns on schoolchildren, have subsequently been vindicated.

Molly Kingsley, who co-founded the children's campaign group UsForThem to advocate for keeping schools open, told The Telegraph that the inquiry's handling of the CDU "very much referenced in a way that endorses its activities".

She disputed the inquiry's characterisation of the unit's work, stating: "For those of us who saw the kind of things that were monitored, that statement is manifestly incorrect."

Ms Kingsley warned: "By sewing these lies into the history books we are risking our own Orwellian repeat of history. We are giving licence to the same thing happening again."

Among the items flagged to the CDU was a December 2020 tweet in which she described school closures as "unforgivable", along with a February 2022 article arguing children's lives remained unjustifiably restricted.

"You don't expect, as a normal citizen, to be monitored. And you certainly don't expect it for standing up for kids," she added.

Professor Carl Heneghan, an Oxford epidemiologist who was also subject to government monitoring, said the inquiry had neglected to address several critical issues, including what he termed the "chilling" deployment of covert surveillance.

"As a democracy, we should be really addressing this fundamental issue of free speech," he said. "What is the legal basis for surveillance of individuals by a government? If it is legal, then the second question is, is it ethical and moral? How do we, as a society, benefit from that approach?"

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Anthony Fauci 'covered up China lab leak theory' at height of Covid pandemic
• AstraZeneca announces surprise U-turn with plan to inject Britain with massive £300m splurge
• Nearly two thirds of British teenagers to have mental health problem within next four years

Government units logged articles Professor Heneghan wrote for The Telegraph and The Spectator, including pieces that challenged the scientific rationale behind the rule of six and questioned data used to justify the second lockdown.

Technology companies removed some of his social media posts concerning face masks and coronavirus mortality statistics following disinformation concerns.

The UK inquiry's approach stands in stark contrast to findings from across the Atlantic, where official investigations reached markedly different conclusions.

A 2024 report from the House of Representatives judiciary committee examined how White House officials "coerced Big Tech" into censoring American citizens, concluding that the effects of this "pressure campaign" were "devastating".

The committee found that "by suppressing free speech and intentionally distorting public debate in the modern town square, ideas and policies were no longer fairly tested and debated on their merits."

A separate House report from the select subcommittee on the coronavirus pandemic determined that the Joe Biden administration "employed undemocratic and likely unconstitutional methods to fight what it deemed to be misinformation".

While US investigations condemned government involvement in content moderation, the British inquiry concluded there was "in principle, nothing unlawful or inappropriate" about monitoring vaccine-related material online.

The Covid Inquiry defended its conclusions, noting that the CDU operated under clear policies requiring staff to ensure all monitoring was lawful and properly approved.

The report emphasised that the unit "did not access private data and only flagged up information that had already been posted on public platforms".

It acknowledged that some vaccine-injured individuals and bereaved families "felt stigmatised and ignored when their content was labelled as misinformation".

A Government spokesman maintained that the CDU "played an important role during the pandemic helping identify false information that could pose a dangerous risk to UK public health".

The spokesman stressed that decisions to label or act upon online content "was only ever taken by the social media platforms, not the government".

The Information Commissioner's Office confirmed it found no evidence of data misuse by the unit.

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter